We owe it to the people to reverse this ban, say Tories

Members of Parliament voted to ban hunting yesterday after an afternoon that illustrated what the term "abuse of democracy" might actually involve.

For the first two hours and 10 minutes MPs debated a procedural device allowing the Government to put the Hunting Bill through the Commons in a day. Many MPs furiously protested that the tactics were undemocratic.

But after five protesters burst into the chamber, where at least one of them was able shout insults at Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, almost eyeball to eyeball, MPs united to condemn an affront to Parliament of a completely different order.

After a short suspension, David Winnick (Lab, Walsall North) said: "We have witnessed the most disgraceful act of hooliganism in years directed against members of this Chamber. For these thugs to actually come through the chamber despite all the security safeguards has been unknown . . . probably unknown throughout the 20th century."

Sir Stuart Bell (Lab, Middlesbrough) said: "Not since Charles I came to this House has there been such an invasion."

Related Articles

The break-in occurred at 4.20pm, after Mr Michael's second reading speech and while James Gray, a Tory environment spokesman, was on his feet. By the time the sitting resumed, there was only about an hour left before MPs voted.

The Bill was passed by 356 votes to 166, a majority of 190.

Later, MPs debated the separate motion delaying implementation of the ban until July 31, 2006, which was described by Mr Michael as a "sensible" proposal, even though the Government originally wanted to delay it until November 2006.

In his main speech, Mr Michael said the Bill was identical to the one passed by MPs in 2003 that failed to get through the House of Lords.

He reaffirmed the Government's intention to use the Parliament Acts to force it on to the statute book. He insisted that the Government had legal advice confirming the "validity" of those powers, which some lawyers claimed could not be used to make law.

Mr Michael also insisted that the Bill was compatible with the Human Rights Act (HRA).

Even though a parliamentary committee has questioned whether the Bill is HRA-compatible because it interferes with people's ability to carry out hunting contracts, Mr Michael said that the Government's lawyers had concluded there was "no enforceable contractual right to carry out hunting after it has been banned".

Mr Michael said it was right that the Bill did not offer compensation and that this did not conflict with human rights legislation. But he promised that the Government would, "through the normal channels of the employment agencies", try to help hunt employees to find alternative work.

Mr Gray, who hunts himself, said that one of the first acts of an incoming Conservative government would be to allow a free vote, in government time, on a Bill to reverse the hunting ban.

"It does seem to us that, since the Labour Party are using such an extreme parliamentary procedure to have their Islingtonian outlook on life imposed on the people of Britain, we owe it to the people of Britain to use similar tactics to reverse the ban."

Dennis Skinner, the veteran Left-winger, was one of many Labour MPs who used the debate to attack the Lords. Addressing Mr Michael, he urged him to "complete what he's doing, get on with the job and tell the House of Lords to go to hell".

Lembit Opik (Lib Dem, Montgomeryshire) said that he had been told by a Labour member outside the chamber that the Bill was "about the miners" and during the debate there were hints that some members wanted to settle scores from the class war. Douglas Hogg (C, Sleaford and North Hykeham) urged MPs to remember that "a parliamentary majority shouldn't be used to suppress the rights of minorities".

But Kevin McNamara (Lab, Hull North) reminded him that the last Conservative government had used its "huge majority" to "crush miners and reduce the rights of trade unionists".

Sir Patrick Cormack (C, South Staffordshire) accused the Government of using "a parliamentary steamroller to criminalise very large numbers of extremely law-abiding people".